Thaler v Commissioner of Patents

In the case of Thaler v Commissioner of Patents, the dispute centred on whether an artificial intelligence system, DABUS, could be recognised as the inventor of a patentable invention. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the Commissioner of Patents was correct in his interpretation that only human beings could be recognised as inventors under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and the associated regulations. The court was required to decide whether DABUS, an artificial intelligence system created by Dr Stephen Thaler, could be recognised as an inventor, and if so, whether Dr Thaler could proceed with his patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

The court examined the language of the relevant provisions of the Act and the regulations, specifically section 15 and regulation 3.2C(2)(aa), to determine the eligibility of DABUS as an inventor. The court held that the term "inventor" in the Act does not necessarily exclude non-human entities, and thus, an artificial intelligence system could be recognised as an inventor. However, the court also clarified that while an artificial intelligence system could be recognised as an inventor, it could not be an applicant for a patent or a grantee of a patent, as these roles are reserved for human beings. The court found that the Commissioner’s interpretation of the regulation was too restrictive and ordered that the matter be reconsidered in light of these findings.

The court set aside the Deputy Commissioner’s determinations and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner for reconsideration, in line with the court’s reasoning. The court emphasised that its decision was consistent with promoting innovation and recognised the evolving nature of patentable inventions and their creators. The parties had previously agreed that there would be no order for costs, regardless of the outcome. The court also granted liberty to apply for formal declarations if any party considered them necessary.